are under no obligation to keep the moral law, why is the Apostle so careful to show, in Romans xiii., that all the commandments are comprehended in the duty of loving one another? Or why does James so care fully point out that whosoever “Shall keep the whole law, and offend in one point, is guilty of all”? Or say “If ye fulfil the royal law according to Scripture ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ ye do well”?
I know that it is said, James was writing for the Jews, and not for the Church; but we cannot be expected to admit such a plea, especially when we remember that, though Jews, they were believers, and that in the Church the Saviour has broken down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and made of the twain one new man, so making peace. After all, however, it is only a dispute about words. Christ is the law of our life, they would say, as well as we; but Christ is our law of life because He is perfectly righteous—is, therefore, in one sense, the embodiment of the law. If this were pointed out we could hardly take exception to the teaching; but proclaimed, as it is, in a dogmatic and negative form, it leads to gross Antinomianism. And there are many of the godly among the Brethren who lament this practical effect of the doctrine.
(8.) We might proceed in our enumeration, but we have neither space nor time. On the question of Baptism “the Brethren” are divided. Mr. Darby practises infant baptism. Mr. Groves alludes to this in the letter we read at the commencement. Mr. Darby has not written on the subject, but the principle on which he justifies it is clearly laid down in a paper in Present Testimony. Its title is, “The House of God―the Body of Christ;” and he maintains that these two things are essentially distinct. He thus says, “If the Body and the House are the same
